About your Search

20130801
20130831
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the united states. >> joining me from washington. cnn senior white house correspondent jim acosta and dana bash and barbara starr. da dana i'm going to start with you. how much do you think pressure had on the president's decision? what has it pure politics here too? >> there's no question it was a significant factor, not the only factor. it's impossible to say that because there's so many weighing on the president's decision. not the least of which what is happening on the international level but my understanding in talking to several senators who are on phone calls and briefings over the past few days with top obama officials is that the pressure really was mounting. not just from republicans and not just from aennti-war libera democrats from saying you have to come to congress. if this is not something that's dire and if it were, the strikes would have happened 24, 48 hours ago, you have to come to congress and get authority from us. that absolutely was a factor. the question is whether or not the president is going to regret this decision because if he doesn't get the votes in the hous
. let's brang in our chief congressional correspondent dana bash. dana, you just heard jim talk about the vice president of the united states. he goes up to capitol hill and he briefs the leadership, the leadership of the house and i guess the senate, the top people there, including the key members of the intelligence committees. >> i talked to a source who said this is where they were first told by the vice president of the united states and some senior state department officials about this threat which the source who i talked to said was incredibly significant. it was clear from the get-go this was going to be something that caused a lot of concern. i talked to other congressional sources briefed through other avenues and venues who say that this is something that the administration clearly needed to do. you heard jill talk about the fact that this is so sweeping in part because they want to make sure they don't get caught flat-footed like they did in benghazi on 9/11 last year. even republican sources who i talked to say that this is absolutely the right thing to do, appropriate re
targets in syria. our chief congressional correspondent dana bash is joining us on the phone. i've got through this letter. i know you have as well. he's raising all sorts of questions, this speaker. >> reporter: all sorts of questions, very specific questions about not just what kind of military action might the administration use, but more specifically what kind of information would they be basing this on, with regard to chemical weapons. what's very interesting about this letter is a couple things, first of all, the speaker make pretty clear that he agrees with the administration that syria is a very important area in national securitywise, and that he supports being aggressive with regard to potential for chemical weapons. he also says this -- i respectfully request that you as the country's commander in chief personally make the indication to the american people and congress for how potential military action will security american national security, and he goes on to say preserve america's credibility and deter the future use of chemical weapons. what he's trying to do here is kin
's begin, though, with your chief congressional correspondent, dana bash. she has details of the syria conference call with members of conference -- members of congress going on right now. da dana, what do we know? >> we know that it has begun and this is good news for lawmakers, who have been really asking the obama administration for more information, was we have pretty heavy hitters, the secretaries of defense and state, as you said. other officials, talking to congressional leaders and key committee heads of both parties. that's the good news for them. the bad news for these lawmakers is that obama officials are going to be limited in what they can say, because they're going to be talking, or are as we speak, on a phone line that is not secure. so what that means is that they're going to be able to discuss only unclassified information. and that could rule out what many of these lawmakers really want to know. what the intelligence the administration has the to back claims about assad using chemical weapons, not to mention military options for strikes against the syrian regime. that
analyst gloria borger and chief congressional correspondent dana bash. the president hasn't made a final decision but everyone knows he has decided he is going to go ahead and launch some sort of strike against targets in syria. >> at this point it's not if but when. i think when you hear the president speak that way, it's clear he's got a lot of options on the table and maybe he was still deciding about a particular option, but i think you would have to assume given the fact that what we saw today was pretty much of a roll-out, first from the secretary and then the president himself. there was a background briefing for journalists with senior administration officials talking about the evidence on chemical weapons. they're clearly making their case. now the issue has been decided in great britain. they made a point of saying that they've got france and turkey with them. so i think what we're seeing is the beginning of the explanation of why they're going to go in -- >> they may have france and turkey's verbal support but i don't see any military hardware other than u.s. military hardware
're following, w r we're getting revelations, asking what the internal revenue service is up to. now dana bash has learned another powerful agency, the federal election commission may fall under suspicion as well, intentional harassment, i should say, not international harassment. what kind of information. at least -- one investigator was discussing the status of a conservative group called the american future fund. now he says shortly after lerner was contacted, the irs sent a questionnaire to that very conservative group. it is still unclear if it is in his words benign or sin sters. -- sinister. we reached out to the irs for comment and they said the irs takes its obligation to protect confidential information very serious live but they also simply can't talk, wolf, about specific ongoing cases. >> these e-mails began talking about e-mails that they want to hand over to them in congress. >> late last week, republicans in congress were investigating this, they released a few e-mail exchanges that they obtained between learner at the irs and an attorney at the american future fund and also a
wouldn't shut down because of a battle over health care. dana bash is watching what's going on, getting reaction to the news conference. is this really what the republicans are threatening to do, shut down the government to try to kill obama care? >> reporter: some are absolutely. i spoke with ted cruz, the republican senator for texas. he said before leaving for recess that he believes if th is the most critical, fundamental time for republicans to make good on their promise to appeal obama care by making this threat that the government is going to run out of money by the end of september and they're not going to vote on funding it unless obama care is defunded. and he's taunting fellow republicans saying they're scared, that's why they may not go his way. but they really are split. he's spending all of august with petitions and trying to push republican leaders to go forward on the strategy. but even the most fiscally conservative republicans are saying for many reasons this is not the best way to go. if you take obama care out of this, there are still questions about how republicans
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)